Military Tribunal In Gitmo

Email Print posted by KenTX 06/06/2008 05:25:57 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed says he wants to die. OK, we’ll see what we can do to make him happy.

He’s a non U.S. citizen who has never set foot on U.S. soil.

He has no constitutional rights. He is not entitled to a jury trial.

He is a non-uniformed saboteur, and has no protection under the Geneva Convention.

He admits to being the mastermind of 9/11.

George Bush used waterboarding to extract all the useful information he had in his head.

We’re setting an important precedent here. America hunts down terrorists; extracts information through waterboarding; incarcerates them in dog pens in Gitmo; tries them with military tribunals; and hangs them without ceremony.

The Supreme Court approves of this system of justice. If you have a problem with it, you should get Barack Obama to complain about it on the campaign trail.
< What is with this ad on the TYT site? | TYT clips on Aljazeera >
 Display:
Military Tribunal In Gitmo | 70 comments (70 topical, 0 hidden)
Why is that ken tool? (none / 0)
Obama has said twice already in major interviews  that he is closing that travesty down.

You really are out of the loop

by Chinese Democracy on 06/06/2008 07:53:44 AM EST

Hey Mark (none / 1)
Why don't you sing one of your stupid little political parody songs while you play the piano? Better yet, why don't you try to dispute the facts that I laid out in the header of this thread? I'm simply offering a little dose of reality, to rattle your safe, insulated, idealistic liberal dream world.

by KenTX on 06/06/2008 11:55:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dosage (none / 0)

The only thing you offer an alternative view to is reality.

The only dose you're taking is Oxycontin from a pathological liar.

by Randomambusher on 06/06/2008 01:35:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good advice MarkRussell (none / 0)
It feels like it has a sense of entitlement because supposedly it donates money to TYT . I personally think its a birbe to allow it to continue.

by Chinese Democracy on 06/06/2008 02:01:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pretty Much (none / 0)

Ken constantly regurgitates the right wing talking points he hears on the AM dial. Nothing new or anything anyone hasn't already heard.

He recently made a bunch of posts making the "drill here, drill now" argument which was the talking point of the day for the the right wing nuts a few weeks ago. The wing nuts have figured out is not working like most of their BS and Ken has gone quiet on the subject and returned to the we are killing Al Qaeda argument. He links to a lot articles that contain no real numbers or facts and when they do it is hysterical (KenTx "See, here is an article about 400 foreign fighters in Iraq over 3 years and the press stopped reporting").

This place makes Ken feel important and that is all you need to know. 

by z1p101 on 06/07/2008 09:52:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good points Mark Russel (none / 0)
each and every one.

by Chinese Democracy on 06/07/2008 10:52:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
gets old doesnt it? (none / 0)
A good debate with someone that has a differing point of view is one thing. Its eye opening and sometimes changes minds.

But a right wing zeolot conservabot that as you pointed out regurgitates the same talking points over and over who is not open to debate but rather posting endless propaganda just to be contrary the only motivation being sheer hatred of liberals gets really boring.

by Chinese Democracy on 06/07/2008 11:01:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He's TYT's personal trainer (none / 0)
Keeps everyone on their toes as to the right-wing talking points.  Without KenTX, our brains would get flabby.  Responses to his posts often contain great resources that I bookmark for later use. 

by desertpear on 06/06/2008 02:08:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hell, links in his posts are often good for (none / 0)
fighting right wing talking points.

by richardshort2001 on 06/06/2008 10:53:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken the window (none / 0)
You all miss the importance of a view point like Ken's. He opens up a window for us to see exactly how the right wing thinks. Keep your friends close, keep your enemy's even closer. It is important to know who and what we are fighting. You may disagree with every word he says, but how many of you can say he has not made you look at something from a different viewpoint, and I don't necessarily mean his. He takes you to places you may not think to go, and feeds the fires to keep fighting. You can't change him anymore than he will change you, but you can learn from him. And besides that, I have noticed that Ken's post generate a lot of responces, why is that?

by juebawl on 06/06/2008 09:43:15 AM EST

No ones missed the point (none / 0)
Ken tx is a right wing tool that posts the same shit over and over and over. There is no debating it. There is no reasoning with it. There is no reason to try.

It is an ideologically blinded zealot  no more  no less.

An old red neck "with his mind made up" that believes everything Rush The oxycotin cowboy Limbaugh spews.

:)

by Chinese Democracy on 06/06/2008 02:05:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mark can't think without a piano (none / 1)
Fortunately, most TYT participants are smart enough to understand the service I'm providing here. For others, I'm happy to patiently explain the program.

Where else can you go for polite debate with a conservative on political issues? Most people find the exchange informative and entertaining.

When you engage me in debate, you have plenty of support, because there are 20 liberals ganging up on and attacking a single, lonesome, harried conservative. There is safety in numbers.

If you're one of those people who hides out in liberal forums so you can have conversations with like-minded people, and you're afraid to consider another point of view, then you can simply skip these threads.

But if you want to have some fun, you're always invited to join a KenTX thread and take your best shot at the dunking tank. I'll sit there in my Gucci loafers and Brooks Brothers suit, calling you a wimp, and challenging you to throw a heater.
dunking tank

by KenTX on 06/07/2008 06:05:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Brush your tooth (none / 0)
I didn't know Ken was a carnie....but it all makes sense now.

by OneHitKill on 06/08/2008 01:47:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken and use of your time (none / 0)

I try to respond to Ken when:

1) he throws out an argument that is worth knocking down just to elaborate the counter-argument.  Kind of a "what to say when they say this" thing.

2) when I can make a meta-argument about Republican arguing tactics (posting links that disprove their arguments, changing the subject, resorting to pathetic pop psychology, etc.) 

3) when is dovetails into what I perceive to be an interesting point

4) when I think I can say something funny while blasting him

Those are the services I try to provide. 

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 12:25:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bloodlust (none / 0)

Yeah, KSM has asked to be martyred.

If there's one thing we've learned it's that it's a good idea to kill terrorist leaders because it doesn't at all inspire their followers, nor are they replaceable.

Brilliant idea. 

by Randomambusher on 06/06/2008 12:29:44 PM EST

Perfect Score (none / 0)
I guess because we used waterboarding on someone who admitted to the crime, that means that ALL prisoners at Gitmo are obviously guilty, but just need a little more coaxing underwater.  Really, Ken, try and just once create an argument that is not so myopic and not so easily identified as a load of crap.

This is my signature.

by TJD on 06/06/2008 12:59:16 PM EST

I'm a good sensitive liberal and all that, but.... (none / 0)

I'd really like the opportunity to take all the torture endorsers (and anyone who would use torture confessions in court) and waterboard them until they finally ADMIT that they are really Osama bin Laden.  :)

 Or maybe just put them in a freezing room, tie them in a stress position and subject them to Barry Manilow music at volume 11 until they admit that Gitmo is really the Copa Cabana.

by blueheartinaredstate on 06/06/2008 05:03:22 PM EST

Sickening (none / 0)

Yes, it's all true, and if it doesn't sicken you that this is what America has come to, then you and others like you are a blight on our nation.

 If you don't understand that condoning torture of those we capture also condones that kind of treatment by others when our soldiers and citizens are captured, you are lost to reason.  Yes, I know that if we do not torture, then our soldiers may still be tortured. But, when we torture, we are saying that it is OK for our own to be tortured. We can no longer condemn these actions when taken by others.

by pmdtrans on 06/06/2008 07:52:33 PM EST

Ken is flat out wrong (none / 0)
Not that it's much of surprise.  Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions clearly applies to KSM and any other "enemy combatants" in our custody.  It doesn't matter what type of Orwellian terms you try to call them by.  They are protected from, amongst other things, torture and cruel treatment.  The article also states that if they are tried, it must be in regular courts that respect due process.  This view was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2006.

by funkyspoon on 06/06/2008 09:22:43 PM EST

Keep in mind... (none / 0)
You are talking to a man (about a party) that believes that the president can change and make laws by writing a memo.  This magic power has, apparently, no oversight and no limit.

by ProfRich on 06/06/2008 11:53:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"trawling", not "trolling" (none / 1)
China Doll refers to my participation in this forum as “trolling”, but I prefer the term “trawling”. I move the boat through the water slowly, and then pull up the catch to examine the load of flopping fish ensnared in the net.
trawling 

Chinese Democracy: “It feels like it has a sense of entitlement because supposedly it donates money to TYT . I personally think its a bribe to allow it to continue.”
I’m proud to make substantial financial contributions to TYT because they offer the best liberal broadcasting in the business. As a fan of political talk radio, I hope they return to XM-Sirius in the near future because America needs polite, friendly debate between Left and Right.

You might visualize me like the man in the dunking tank, wearing the Gucci loafers and Brooks Brothers suit. You are invited to take your best shot, but please contribute financially to TYT if you want to play. If I’m paying for the privilege of playing the game, so should you.
dunking tank 

desertpear: “Keeps everyone on their toes as to the right-wing talking points.  Without KenTX, our brains would get flabby.” 

Juebawl: “How many of you can say he has not made you look at something from a different viewpoint.  He takes you to places you may not think to go.”

Desertpear and juebawl understand the game we’re playing here. (Hopefully, they’ll explain it to Tiny China Doll.) If you can’t defeat me, then maybe your political belief system is lacking.

Randomambusher: “Yeah, KSM has asked to be martyred. If there's one thing we've learned it's that it's a good idea to kill terrorist leaders because it doesn't at all inspire their followers, nor are they replaceable. Brilliant idea.” 

Some people are able to throw fastballs at the dunking tank, but alas, all randomambusher has is a slow speed plastic wiffle ball. You might remember good ol’ Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. He was martyred, and how was the news received in Iraq? Take a look.
We are kicking al Qaeda’s ass throughout the Middle East. Luckily, people like randomambusher haven’t been running the war.

Funkyspoon: “Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions clearly applies to KSM and any other "enemy combatants" in our custody.  It doesn't matter what type of Orwellian terms you try to call them by.  They are protected from, amongst other things, torture and cruel treatment.  The article also states that if they are tried, it must be in regular courts that respect due process.  This view was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2006.”

Thank you for your legal opinion on the matter. However, a quick review of court rulings demonstrates that your position is fraught with error.

SCOTUS ruled in Ex Parte Quirin that during time of war, the Executive has the right to try saboteurs, spies and unlawful combatants in military tribunals. There is even a legal definition for unlawful combatants.

FDR hanged Nazi saboteurs after trying them in front of a military tribunal. It is very difficult to find differences between Nazi saboteurs and al Qaeda saboteurs, except that Nazis were an organized army fighting for the nation of Germany. Therefore, al Qaeda saboteurs are even more unlawful, and less legitimate than Nazi saboteurs.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 supports the Executive’s right to prosecute al Qaeda with military tribunals. The law is currently in front of the Supreme Court, and a decision imminent.

If George Bush has broken any laws, there’s a constitutional remedy called “impeachment”. Maybe you’ve heard of it. This process requires a simple majority in the House of Representatives. Therefore, even if not a single Republican supports impeachment, it is still possible with enough Democrat support. Yet there have been no hearings, or anything.

George Bush admitted to “torturing” KSM, yet Democrats are doing nothing about it. Why is that? And please don’t respond with the worn out “Democrats are wimps.” If they're wimps, then they have no business leading the war on al Qaeda.

by KenTX on 06/07/2008 07:17:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
pay back (none / 0)
Ken, when will you consider learning about the art of war. The first premise is know your enemy.

Mohammed wishs to die so that he can become a martyr. He believes he will be rewarded in heaven. Why should we help him to achieve his goal? Why would you give AQ more free anti-american publicity? If these people were afraid to die 911 would not have happened.

second premise is know yourself

America is supposed to be a beacon of freedom and justice to the world. We are supposed to be the good guys. The tactics that we are now using were described as "evil" by none other than Ronald Reagan himself. Our image is one of our most important weapons against AQ and we have willingly gave it away, in an attempt to take short cuts.

I am disturbed by your attitude my friend, I know you consider yourself to be a loyal and patriotic american. A true patriot doesn't have to cherry pick his facts. recently you declared victory over AQ due to some report out of Iraq, completely ignoring the pentagon's report a couple of weeks before that AQ is back to full stregnth.

You seemed to have missed the latest report about Afganistan. Now we need 400,000 troops to stablize that country.

Our current strategy is a failure. The only way it could possibly work is if we intend to kill every arab and muslim worldwide. Sadly that still wouldn't end terrorism (as Oklahoma City proves)

Terrorism is not an enemy, terrorism is a tactic.

by LORD FOUL on 06/07/2008 10:36:01 AM EST

Great post LF (none / 0)

by Chinese Democracy on 06/07/2008 10:48:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
my dear friend (none / 1)
"Mohammed wishs to die so that he can become a martyr. He believes he will be rewarded in heaven. Why should we help him to achieve his goal? Why would you give AQ more free anti-american publicity? If these people were afraid to die 911 would not have happened."
So what do you want to do with KSM? Rehabilitate him? Get him some counseling? We certainly disposed of Timothy McVeigh without debate.

"You seemed to have missed the latest report about Afganistan. Now we need 400,000 troops to stabilize that country."
Having vanquished al Qaeda in Iraq, and having stabilized the country, and having turned it over to thankful allies, we should probably move assets to Afghanistan to give additional help our other ally. Afghanistan is no more or less important than Iraq. 

Hopefully, President Bush will instruct the troops in Afghanistan to avoid killing al Qaeda terrorists. As you rightfully pointed out: 
"Mohammed wishes to die so that he can become a martyr. He believes he will be rewarded in heaven. Why should we help him to achieve his goal? Why would you give AQ more free anti-american publicity?

by KenTX on 06/07/2008 05:46:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My best answer (none / 0)
Convict him in a real court of law (control news coverage). Use our propaganda machine to show the world just what a dispicable character this man is and then sentence him to life in prison. (should have killed the bastard in the field).

We won in Afganistan remember? What was it McCain said? whack a mole?

Thankful allies? where? Saudi Arabia is supposed to be a thankful ally right?

If we would have done the job right the first time Bin Laden would have been capture and we wouldn't need to send troops there.

by LORD FOUL on 06/09/2008 08:13:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Eyewitnesses say U.S. murdered Zarqawi (none / 1)
That's how we handle al Qaeda now, because there's no reason to risk personnel  to take him alive. In fact, that's the first question the CIA is asking these days: "What will you do if we bring him back alive?"

We can't take him to Gitmo.
We can't rendition him to a black hole prison.
We can't interrogate him.
We can't waterboard him.
We can't stress him, or make him uncomfortable.
We can't hold him indefinitely until al Qaeda is no longer a threat.
We can't deny him Habeas Corpus.
We can't deny him constitu tional rights.
We can't deny him a jury trial with an army of ACLU defense attorneys.

So we dropped a 500 pound bomb on him. When Special Forces found him alive and well, they jumped up and down on his chest to make it look like he died in the explosion.

I wonder how Iraqi eyewitnesses were smart enough to fabricate a story like that? That's exactly what you would do to make it look like explosion was the cause of death.

by KenTX on 06/07/2008 09:33:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you hate our troops? (none / 0)

by richardshort2001 on 06/07/2008 10:19:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do liberals love our enemies? (none / 1)
Liberals have always supported America’s enemies during time of war. We can always count on liberals to hate America, just when we need their support.

During the Cold War, they wore this:
stalin


During the Cuban Missile Crisis, they wore this:
castro
During the Korean War, they wore this:
mao

During the Vietnam War, they wore this:
ho
During the War in Nicaragua, they wore this:
che

During the War on Al Qaeda, they wore this:
osama

Some are even still wearing this:
zarqawi

by KenTX on 06/07/2008 11:35:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You fail to answer the question. (none / 0)
Why do you hate our troops and call them murderers?

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 12:03:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Highlighting liberal foolishness (none / 1)
Consider these three questions.

1. When we dropped a 500 pound bomb on Zarqawi, was that "murder"?

2. If the eyewitnesses were correct, and U.S. Special Forces stomped Zarqawi to death, was that "murder"?

3. When American forces apprehended KSM, a high ranking assistant to Osama Bin Laden, and subjected him to stressful interrogation techniques, was that "torture"?

My answer to all three questions is "No, it was an act of Total War against al Qaeda."

I don't have angst about definitions, because America is a country at war. The important question is how does Richard Short answer the three questions.



by KenTX on 06/08/2008 12:21:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You are the one spreading the propaganda calling (none / 0)
our troops murderers.

You still haven't answered why.

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 12:26:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Try to answer this one, Dick. (1.00 / 2)
Consider this (cartoonized) scene from the end of Saving Private Ryan. Was Upham guilty of "murder", or was he simply killing a cockroach that should have been dispatched earlier in the film?

My position is that in Total War, you take it to the enemy. I don't believe words like "murder" or "torture" apply when dealing with al Qaeda.

Since you're having difficulty answering any questions, allow me to offer a more simple question: What have Democrats done to support America in the War Against Al Qaeda? For the life of me, I can't recall a single thing.

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 12:38:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you spread propaganda (none / 0)
calling our troops murderers?

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 12:45:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you spread propaganda, (1.00 / 2)
calling our troops "torturers"?

(Here's a secret: You just lost the debate.)

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 12:51:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What debate? (none / 0)
I just want a simple question answered. 

Why do you feel it necessary to spread propaganda that aids and comforts the enemy?

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 12:54:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Riddle me this (none / 0)
According to you then Al-Qaeda kidnapping and beheading our soldiers on the internet is not murder, right?

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 01:05:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Two out of three (none / 0)

The answers to questions two and three are unequevocally yes according to any definitions beside John Yoo's.

Its bizzare to me Ken would even pretend that wasn't so.

Stomping a guy who is clearly in custody to death is obviously murder, war or no. Thats killing a prisoner of war which is murder.

Ken, might want to quit his job and start writing revisionist histories if he believes this stuff because the job of changing our "misconceptions" is going to be a full time one. 

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 01:03:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
question for rich (1.00 / 2)
Is killing 80,000 helpless women and children in Hiroshima "murder", or an act of war?

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 01:11:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you hate our troops, (none / 0)
America, or just freedom in general?

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 01:14:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
WTF (none / 1)

How is that relevant to anything I said?

Is killing 80,000 surrendered prisoners of war murder or an act of war?

That is what I was talking about.

My guess is that will go on the unbelievably long list of questions you will not answer.

Was 9/11 murder or an act of war? 

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 01:21:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As usual, (1.00 / 2)
you didn't answer the question.

In Total War, which of the following actions are "acts of war"?

1. The bombing of civilians in Dresden.
2. The attack on Pearl Harbor.
3. The bombing of civilians in Hiroshima.
4. The killing of Zarqawi.
5. The interrogation of KSM.
6. The 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon, White House, and WTC.
7. The consumption of American POW livers by starving Japanese military personnel on Pacific islands.
8. The Bataan death march.
9. The Rape of Nanking.

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 01:40:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I answered your stupid three questions (none / 1)

Now you answer my one.

Is killing a POW murder?

Quit dodging the question, Ken. 

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 01:51:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know the answer. (1.00 / 2)
If I was in the military, and I had a bead on OBL, I might squeeze the trigger because I couldn't be sure if he was armed or not. I can't judge the actions of our military people on the field of battle.

Subjecting KSM to stressful interrogation to determine the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden is not torture. He was made uncomfortable for a couple of minutes, by having water forced into his nose while he was resting in an inverted, declining posture. His vital organs were never compromised. He was merely subjected to discomfort.

Congress knows that George Bush authorized the use of waterboarding, and yet they are doing nothing about it. Why is that?

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 02:05:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you know what a POW is? (none / 0)
Your answer suggests you don't.

As for the torture issue,

Convention III Article 17 states:

"...No physical or mental torture, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF COERSION, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatsoever."

So whether you define it as torture or not is irrelevant, it is illegal. 

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 02:31:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My question is simple. (1.00 / 2)
If George Bush is guilty of torture, why is the Democrat-controlled House not moving to impeach?

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 02:35:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Instead of answering this AGAIN (none / 0)
Here is a link to my last rant in response to you asking this.

I assume you had a McCain moment.  You may want to favorite our responses to your questions so that the next time you forget the answers you can just look them up.

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 02:43:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm trying to follow this. (1.00 / 2)
Are you saying that Democrats plan to prosecute Bush and Cheney for War Crimes, and subject them to the same punishment of Nazi and Japanese military leaders?
That would make for an interesting campaign promise. Can we expect Barack Obama to take this to the people?

What happens if there is no impeachment of Bush, and no prosecution of Bush? Will history view his actions as completely legal?

I'm betting there will not be impeachment or prosecution. As alays, Democrats are all talk and no action. 

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 03:09:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Pssst (none / 0)

We were never at war with Nicaragua.

And the guy on that shirt: not Nicaraguan. 

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 12:56:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks Rich. (none / 1)
The Democracy-Loving Contras were fighting the Communism-Loving Sandanistas.

The Reagan Administration supported the Contras.

And (you guessed it!) Democrats supported Sandanistas.
rich is easy to beat! 

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 01:06:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you mean (none / 1)

The Reagan administration massively violated the Constitution and illegaly supported the Contras spending taxpayer dollars against their will.

That is a hell of a lot different than the country fighting in Nicaragua.  But thanks for bringing up one of the most blatant transgression of the Constitution in US history.

Bonus question: What is Kerry congratulating Daniel Ortega for?  Hmmm, what anti-American accomplishment had Ortega just achieved that the Reagan administration had to assualt our form of government to stop? 

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 01:13:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
easy (none / 1)
"The Reagan administration massively violated the Constitution and illegaly supported the Contras spending taxpayer dollars against their will."

Thanks to pressure from the Contras, who were supported by the Reagan Administration, with agreement from all GOP Senators, and a few Democrat Senators, Daniel Ortega was forced to agree to free elections. By the way, he lost the election.

(I realize I make this look easy, but you have to consider my opponent.)

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 01:30:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
BTW (1.00 / 2)
"Military support" is defined as military materials and intelligence support. 

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 01:41:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Your an idiot (none / 0)

Sorry about the ad hominem attack but I don't know what else to say.

Here is what the Wikipedia has to say.

In November 1984, Ortega called national elections; he won the presidency with 63% of the vote and took office on January 10, 1985. According to the vast majority of independent observers, the 1984 elections were perhaps the freest and fairest in Nicaraguan history. A report by an Irish parliamentary delegation stated: "The electoral process was carried out with total integrity. The seven parties participating in the elections represented a broad spectrum of political ideologies." The general counsel of New York's Human Rights Commission described the election as "free, fair and hotly contested."

From that Ken concluded Ortega lost the election.

Or maybe Ken was referring to the 1990 elections which Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with as he was retired and the Sandanistas need no encouragement to have elections anyway.  Oretga did lose that election---to another Sandanista!

Cheer up though Ken because apparently Ortega was elected again in the 2005 elections.  Yeah, Reagan really put him in his place.

Weren't you around for all of this? Are the Limbaugh brainwashings so effective that you now believe the exact opposite of what you witnessed happen?

Un-fucking-believable.

Oh, and lets not forget the awesome Republican belief system that believes in spreading democracy by subverting our Constitution, lying to Congress and the people and selling weapons to terrorists to take out a democratically elected government in the name of democracy.

Stop talking about this Ken.  You look like a fool saying Ortega lost this election Reagan forced.

Oh, and answer the question, is killing a POW murder? 

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 01:48:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Look who is the idiot. (1.00 / 2)
You didn’t supply the wikipedia link because it offers some facts that dispute your claims.
From the Wikipedia link;

“Or maybe Ken was referring to the 1990 elections which Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with as he was retired and the Sandanistas need no encouragement to have elections anyway.  Oretga did lose that election---to another Sandanista!”

Ortega's opponent was an ANTI-SANDINISTA.

In the 1990 presidential election, Ortega lost to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, his former colleague in the junta. Chamorro was supported by a 14-party anti-Sandinista alliance known as the National Opposition Union (Unión Nacional Opositora, UNO), an alliance that ranged from conservatives and liberals to communists. Contrary to what most observers expected, Chamorro shocked Ortega and won the election. In Ortega's concession speech the following day he vowed to keep "ruling from below" a reference to the power that the FSLN still wielded in various sectors.

“Cheer up though Ken because apparently Ortega was elected again in the 2005 elections.  Yeah, Reagan really put him in his place.”
After Ortega lost, and lost, and lost again and then finally changed from a Marxist to a democratic socialist, in favor of "conservative" policies. I guess he became a Reaganite?

Ortega ran for election again, in October 1996 and November 2001, but lost on both occasions to Arnoldo Alemán and Enrique Bolaños, respectively. In these elections, a key issue was the allegation of corruption. In Ortega’s last days as president, through a series of legislative acts known as “The Piñata”, estates that had been seized by the Sandinista government (some valued at millions and even billions US$) became the private property of various FSLN officials, including Ortega himself.

Ortega's policies became more moderate during his time in opposition, and he gradually reduced much of his former Marxist rhetoric in favor of an agenda of more moderate democratic socialism. His Roman Catholic faith has become more intense in recent years as well, leading Ortega to embrace a variety of socially conservative policies; in 2006 the FSLN endorsed a strict law banning all abortions in Nicaragua.

Hey dumbass, did you think I wouldn't read the link?

Once again, I declare you defeated.

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 02:33:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You need a new worldview, Ken (none / 0)

This post is not a triumphant victory, it is another example of your Red Team vs. Blue Team mentality crippling your ability to understand what is going on.

You see the fact Ortega lost in 1990 (well after Regan's meddling has ceased) is not a blow to me or the Democrats, jackass.  It is just the result of a free and fair election.

Democratic position- Let them have an election and let the winner run the country.

GOP position- Let them have an election and if they elect the wrong guy we'll sell weapons to Iranian terrorists and use the money to kill everyone in Nicaragua who voted the wrong way.

See, Ortega winning was a blow to Reagan because he thought people who voted freely in an election for a candidate he didn't like should be killed.

Ortega winning was a win for the Dems because it was a free and fair election.  It really didn't matter who won.

I know those aren't polar opposites so you will never understand this, but there it is.

So to extrapolate.  When another member of the Sandanista Junta (who had formed a new party, she was NOT a Contra) wins in 1990 that is, first not really a victory for the GOP but it is a victory for the Dems bacause she won a free and fair election.

And in 1995 and 2000 when Contras won it was a victory for the GOP (apparently thanks to Clinton to follow your logic) and a victory for the Dems.  How is that possible, Ken? Inconceivable, I hear you scream.  But since the Contras won a free and fair election, the Dems are happy about it.

I know you will never ever wrap your head around all that but I didn't want anyone thinking I was "defeated". 

by ProfRich on 06/09/2008 10:08:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Should be "you're" (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 01:49:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken wants to delete this thread (none / 0)

You're not making anything look easy.  You're making yourself look like Ken: Special Needs Edition by constantly changing your definition of justifiable killing, and ignoring the challenges that come forth as a result.  I'm really interested to hear your answers -- your actual answers -- to Rich's questions.  They are good questions and they appear to make you uncomfortable as hell.  Whether or not you do or don't actually regard ProfRich as your intellectual inferior, I'm willing to bet that most of us here don't agree.  So if you want to look like you're taking him on, rather than just running headless, do us all a favor and take him seriously.

by OneHitKill on 06/08/2008 01:59:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Too Late (none / 0)
I already saved it.

So, Ken, will you answer my question or at least acknowledge the point we both know that I am making by repeating to ask it?  (Yes, obviously it isn't a serious question, but since you wanna be a troll, that's the level I am choosing to address you.)  Also, I agree with OneHitKill that you should seriously answer Rich's question as well.  Otherwise, I am afraid the forum will have to be reminded of this thread everytime you open your mouth with another GOP talking point.

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 02:07:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me explain it to you guys. (1.00 / 2)
If you refuse to answer my questions, like the ones posed to Rich in this comment, and the ones posed to Dick Short in this comment, then I will refuse to answer your questions.

Does that seem fair to everyone?

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 02:14:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Except (none / 0)
your questions were asked only as a way to dodge ours.

by richardshort2001 on 06/08/2008 02:32:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
which party is pro-marxist? (none / 1)
1

2 

3 

4

5

6

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 03:34:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Biiiiiig yawn (none / 0)
A Fox News still?  Way to kneecap yourself, Captain Picturebook.

by OneHitKill on 06/08/2008 04:18:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Slight clarification (none / 0)
Actually conservatives don't bother to wear flag pins.  As rich, white guys they don't have any reason to prove their patriotism.  Flag pins are for the darkies so we know what side they are on.

by ProfRich on 06/08/2008 12:52:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's like debating fish in a barrel (none / 0)
Yeah, but just look how silly his posts are, yet with that over-the-top smugness.  Ken's like the Dwight Shrute of this forum.  You just know you aren't supposed to be his friend; you can feel it in your bones that, should you take kindly to him, you'll be ostracized by everyone else and regret it forever.  Casual visitors to this forum will take one look at a KenTX-created topic and run screaming away from his paranoid, polarized mindset, never to look back.  Nay, we progressives could not ask for a better spokesman than KenTX.

by OneHitKill on 06/08/2008 11:38:27 AM EST

It never fails. (none / 0)
Whenever you call out a phony and expose them, they melt like an ice cube on a summer day in Phoenix. If Mark wants to start making rules around here, he needs to either ante up, or shut up.

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 07:16:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...Except when it always fails (none / 0)

What are you talking about?  Who have you exposed?  Who melted?  Who's playing poker?  Who around here is more of a prat fall artist than yourself?  Start making sense.

(What-a meesa saying?  You're not "sense-compatible.&quo t;) 

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2008 04:47:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mark is a phony. (none / 0)
Mark is representative of a minority group of people who simply cannot tolerate a different point of view. He labels free speech as “abuse”, and this thread is Exhibit Number One.

Never mind that I started this thread, and I didn’t invite Mark to participate (although he is always welcome to join the party). I challenge Mark to look back at my comments in the thread and look for examples of debate, and compare these with examples of “abuse”.

Let me offer an example of Mark’s phoniness. Here he is claiming that he was contemplating purchasing a “premium membership” to TYT, but he was disturbed by the presence of “trolls”. At the time, he was talking about acroso and BytchBang, but they no longer participate. I’m the last remaining conservative in the forum, and still, Mark refuses to open his wallet.

If I disappear, and there are no “trolls” in the forum, do you think Mark will contribute to TYT? Of courrrrrse not. He’s all mouth.

Mark parachutes into the forum on occasion and makes comments about disapproving of trolls, and then he expects us to take him seriously. If Mark wants to put some skin in the game and start contributing financially, then he will have earned the privilege of discussing the tone of the debate in the forum.

by KenTX on 06/08/2008 06:29:24 PM EST

Since when do you want to be taken seriously (none / 0)

I take Mark seriously.  I take most of my fellow forum users seriously.

Most of them. 

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2008 04:49:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Look at me when I tell you this. (none / 0)
I take anyone who contributes financially to TYT seriously. Nobody else has earned the right to complain.

Do you understand me clearly this time?

Do I need to be more explicit with you funny boy?

by KenTX on 06/09/2008 05:17:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Then take everyone seriously (none / 0)
Just don't show me your bikini zone again.

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2008 07:17:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Military Tribunal In Gitmo | 70 comments (70 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: